[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: "L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>*Subject*: Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter*From*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Date*: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:14:10 -0800*Cc*: <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>*In-Reply-To*: <199702060152.TAA24156@hurricane.gnt.net>*References*: <199702060152.TAA24156@hurricane.gnt.net>*Reply-To*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Sender*: owner-starship-design

L. Clayton Parker writes: > > Of course, with a quantum black hole you can do partial conversion of > > mass to energy by feeding it at the same rate that it emits mass/energy > > due to quantum evaporation. If you run out of fuel you have to be able > > to toss the black hole away before it blows up due to runaway > > evaporation; the rate of evaporation is inversely related to the mass of > > the black hole. > > (P.S. at least on argument says the black hole will ALWAYS evaporate > QUICKLY and therefore it is useless to attempt this...) On the other hand, if you can get the right evaporation rate and maintain it, you also get the advantage that the evaporation products will be statistically 1/2 matter and 1/2 antimatter (except for the photons). So if it is possible to keep a quantum black hole just on the edge of evaporation at a rate useful for propulsion and power generation, you also get near-total matter-to-energy conversion by recombining the evaporation products. My understanding is that evaporation rate is a function of the mass of the black hole (and hence the gravity gradient near it), with the rate going up asymptotically as the black hole mass approaches zero. You also have the problem that radiation pressure from the evaporating black hole will make it difficult to pump more mass into it to prevent runaway evaporation, especially as you want more power. Unfortunately I don't know the exact equation that relates evaporation rate to mass to know whether it would be feasible to keep a quantum black hole in a stable state and get a useful power output.

**References**:**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter***From:*"L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter** - Next by Date:
**starship-design: Lots O Stuff...** - Prev by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter** - Next by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter** - Index(es):